Nor am I singular in thus reproaching the modern type of sophist (not
the true philosopher, be it understood); it is a general reproach that
the wisdom he professes consists in word-subtleties, not in ideas.[8]
Certainly it does not escape my notice that an orderly sequence of
ideas adds beauty to the composition:[9] I mean it will be easy to
find fault with what is written incorrectly.[10] Nevertheless, I
warrant it is written in this fashion with an eye to rectitude, to
make the reader wise and good, not more sophistical. For I would wish
my writings not to seem but rather to be useful. I would have them
stand the test of ages in their blamelessness.[11]

[8] {onomasi}, "in names"; {noemasi}, "thoughts and ideas."

[9] Or, "I am alive to the advantage to be got from methodic, orderly
expression artistically and morally."

[10] This passage, since H. Estienne (Stephanus) first wrote against
it "huic loco meae conjecturae succumbunt," has been a puzzle to
all commentators. The words run: {ou lanthanei de me oti kalos kai
exes gegraphthai} [{gegraptai} in the margin of one MS.] {radion
gar estai autois takhu me orthos mempsasthai' kaitoi gegraptai ge
outos k.t.l.} For {takhu me orthos} (1) {takhu ti me orthos}, (2)
{to} (or {ta}) {me orthos}, have been suggested. It is not clear
whether {autois} = {tois sophistais} (e.g. "it will be easy for
these people to lay a finger at once on blots, however unfairly"),
or = {tois suggrammasi} (sc. my(?) compositions; so {auta}, S. 7
below, {ou gar dokein auta boulomai k.t.l.}) (e.g. "since it will
be easy offhand to find fault with them incorrectly") [or if {ta
me orthos}, "what is incorrect in them"]. I append the three